Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Monday, October 30, 2017

"Fake news" is a derivative of our having been conditioned to fake history.

In issue no. 93 of Revisionist History newsletter we will be studying "Jesse James, Abraham Lincoln and the Lost Secret of the Civil War." That secret pertains to why the war was fought by enthusiastic Northern troops in the Union Army, most of whom were abolitionists because they were white nationalists. It's one thing to make that statement and another to document it. We're going to try in issue 93, which should go on sale toward the end of next week. Subscribe now and start your subscription with no. 93.

In the same issue, we will continue tracking the trail of a serpent, situation ethics — surveilling the progress and impact of the Babylonian Talmud’s doctrine of situation ethics at its most raw and destructive form in terms of the infiltration of the Church. To do this it is necessary to step on toes and shatter cherished iconic mythologies.

What is the Lost Secret of Luther's Reformation?

What is the Lost Secret of the Reformation? Luther's revolt is most often explained in terms of an obtuse and occluding bumper sticker slogan, “The sale of indulgences." In truth and from his own fiery words, we learn that he was so obstinately loyal to medieval Catholicism, unlike the Renaissance papalists who had overthrown it, that he would not yield to situation ethics as it manifested in the usury and Judaism which was gaining firm purchase inside the highest echelon of the Church of Rome.

Fake history suppresses the inconvenient truth that in order to enable the usury profits of the mortally sinful Fugger and Medici banks, Pope Leo X, who was himself a Medici, weakened the immemorial ban on usury, which sent Luther into a paroxysm of rage against the papacy for betraying 1500 years of immutable Biblical-Patristic and true Catholic dogma against the renting of money. Luther thundered clearly and unequivocally:

"He who lends expecting to get back something more and something better than he has loaned is nothing but an open and condemned usurer.”

With his uncompromising stand he won the hearts of many Germans who were shocked and aggrieved by the pope's role in empowering the hated Fugger usury operation in Germany.

You are not likely to hear or see a word of these facts in the ocean of broadcasts and texts that are being issued in connection with the 500th anniversary of the promulgation Luther's 95 Theses.

You may hear it said that Luther was "anti-Semitic" (which he certainly was not — he had no animus toward Judaic people; his Biblical theology was not an antecedent of Nazi ideology).

Luther did have a bone to pick with the Talmud and once again, in part because the papacy of his time had been behind it.

"But the popes burned the Talmud!" some will reply.

That riposte reminds this writer of criticism of my book on white slavery in early America, "But whites were only indentured servants!” That’s a half-truth which fails as history because it fails to make distinctions. Whites who were in bondage in the 17th century in British America were mostly slaves; whites who were in bondage in 19th century America were mostly indentured.

The Talmud was certainly not burned under Leo X or Clement VII, or the other early 16th century popes. On the contrary, it was advanced.

Only after Renaissance Rome had clandestinely sponsored the publication of the finest, most magnificent edition of the Talmud in world history, and fixed its canon thereby, preserving it as a basis for the survival and extension of rabbinic Judaism in the West — did Rome decades later, stage a few theatrical Talmud-burnings — in one case, documented in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, in a Machiavellian trade-off wherein hundreds of copies of the Kabbalah were saved from destruction by means of a diversionary burning of the Talmud. Welcome to Vatican chess.

Rome’s covert alliance with Talmudism derived from the plague of “Catholic” occultism which had been cultivated in mid-15th century Florence and subsequently infecting much of the Church hierarchy. This was no secret to Martin Luther. As with the papal permission for usury, once again he reacted with a smoldering fury which culminated in 1543 in his incendiary book, Von den Jüden und ihren Lügen, which contains not one bigoted racial disparagement of Judaics as Judaics — but page after page of highly informed, Bible-based and medieval-Catholic consonant, deprecatory analysis of the anti-Biblical iniquity and deception in the Talmud.

From this early Lutheran heritage of principled, non-race based hostility to anthropomorphic religion, arose in 1700 the historic and thus far unsurpassed, inaugural scientific deconstruction of rabbinic Judaism: Lutheran prodigy Johann Andreas Eisemenger's two volume, Entdecktes Judenthum ("Judaism Explored"), which was subsequently seized and destroyed by the pope's Holy Roman Emperor.

All this is a prologue to the real history of Martin Luther's Reformation, upon which we will expand in Revisionist History no. 93. Watch this space for details.

In the meantime, meditate on this mind-blower: with regard to defenestrating the Money Power and and its Talmudic progenitor, Martin Luther was far more Catholic than the Neoplatonic-Hermetic-Kabbalistic popes of his era.

Michael Hoffman is a leading scholar of the western secret societies and the history of ideology in early modern Europe and Britain.

Former President George W. Bush discovered this week that all he had to do to make the media finally like him was take a rhetorical swing at Donald Trump October 19.

And it didn’t hurt that he teamed up with Barack Obama to do it. The result was a media swoon. The New York Timescrooned: “Without Saying ‘Trump,’ Bush and Obama Deliver Implicit Rebukes.”

The #Resistance found its new power couple!

But wait, there’s more! The Times also printed a fawning profile of Bush’s twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. You’ve come a long way, babies, from the tabloid accounts of drunken college revelries.

Now that their father has teamed up with Obama and the Clintons, the girls are enjoying the sort of media love that only Democrat daughters get. In fact, Barbara and Jenna are kind of like a double Chelsea—with Planned Parenthood fundraising and all.

It’s as if the Obamas, Clintons, and Bushes have formed a sort of Establishment extended family. Dubya even likes to call Bill his “brother with a different mother.”

So is it any wonder that George finally joined Barry, Bill, and Hill in bashing Don? Trump, for all his wealth, has never been one of the beautiful people.

The Establishment despises Trump, but they don’t fear him. They fear his Deplorables—the ordinary Americans from every race, religion, gender, and background who catapulted Trump to victory.

The Deplorables are busy polishing their armor for Steve Bannon’s 2018 “season of war” against the Establishment, which is why Bush rose up to denounce them in his speech on Thursday.

He thinks these Deplorable populists are racists preaching the super dangerous idea that American policies should benefit Americans first (See?! That’s proof they hate foreigners!). He believes this monstrous sentiment must be consigned to the ash heap of history … or, like, wherever they hid Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction so that no one could find them.

For a man who kept quiet throughout all of the Obama years, Dubya sure had a lot to say. Let’s examine the text of his speech to understand what was on his mind—or rather his speechwriter’s mind.

Interestingly, I found the transcript of his speech on the website of Town and Country magazine, between such important articles as “10 Times Royals Wore the Exact Same Dress.”

T and C is the perfect publication for this paean to the Gospel of Globalism, which enriches the few and impoverishes the rest. Bush’s words are tucked happily between the glossy pages displayed on the mahogany coffee tables of his fellow country-club heirs. (Dubya, the son of a U.S. president and the grandson of a U.S. senator, is right at home with this crowd.)

For your amusement, I pulled out thirteen key passages from his speech (or at least, thirteen passages that had me snickering at my computer screen).

Bush was talking to former Army Sergeant First Class Ramon Padilla. Back in 2007, during the Bush presidency, Padilla, serving in Afghanistan, was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade; he lost his left arm and suffered traumatic brain injury. Bush painted his portrait, as part of his book of guilt-expiating oil portraits of the military veterans he sent to war.

The current edition includes 70 paintings. He has a very long way to go before he finishes painting all of the lives he’s damaged.

2. “It’s amazing to have Secretary Albright share the stage with Condi and Ambassador Haley”

Yes, it’s amazing that Trump’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, would happily share the stage with not only an anti-Trump neoconservative such as Bush, but also with two other neocons, former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Bush 43 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

All three of them, of course, were staunch advocates of the Iraq war, and all the other U.S. interventions in the last two decades. Haley should know that foreign quagmires are even worse than the D.C. swamp.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, left, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, center, and former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice at a forum sponsored by the George W. Bush Institute in New York, Thursday, Oct. 19, 2017.

3. “Free trade helped make America into a global economic power.”

That statement would have been news to such America-builders as Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt.

As TR exclaimed in 1895, “Thank God I’m not a free trader. In this country pernicious indulgence in the doctrine of free trade seems inevitably to produce fatty degeneration of the moral fiber.”

It was non-free trade, also known as economic nationalism, that built America. We’ve been coasting for decades on its massive industrial legacy; but as we know, it’s grinding to a painful halt.

4. “For more than 70 years, the presidents of both parties believed that American security and prosperity were directly tied to the success of freedom in the world. And they knew that the success depended, in large part, on U.S. leadership. The mission came naturally, because it expressed the DNA of American idealism.”

Speaking of missions and idealism, the idealistic pro-freedom military mission of George W. Bush’s generation was Vietnam. And yet interestingly, with the help of his father, then a U.S. Congressman, as well as others in his well-connected social circle, young George managed to avoid active military duty.

Instead, he got himself into the Texas Air National Guard, dubbed a “champagne unit,” because it was so brimming with Bush-types. In that Guard unit, by all accounts, Bush indulged in more than champagne. Indeed, Bush had such a bumpy time that he was ultimately thrown out, although by then, the draft was over, and so it didn’t matter any more.

At any time, of course, Bush could have cleaned himself up and served, but he was in no mood to join the military. In 1973, he began attending Harvard Business School.

Congressman George H. W. Bush (R-TX) displays the officer’s bar of his son 2nd Lt. George W. Bush during a special swearing in ceremony for the Texas Air National Guard, circa 1968.

5. “We know, deep down, that repression is not the wave of the future."

Tell that to Vladimir Putin. Back in 2001, President Bush had this to say about the Russian: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

I bet he found the reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq “very straightforward and trustworthy” too.

6. “Freedom is not merely a political menu option, or a foreign policy fad; it should be the defining commitment of our country, and the hope of the world.”

I get nervous whenever Bush starts popping off about America’s “commitment” to the world. I flashback to 2005, when Bush delivered one of the craziest inaugural addresses in U.S. history.

In it, he declared, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” [emphasis added].

How’s that grandiose mission working out for the world? And for America? Perhaps Bush could ask the wounded veterans whose portraits he painted.

As an aside, the White House speechwriter for that misguided inaugural screed was Michael Gerson, who is now an in-house globalist neoconservative (one of many) at the Washington Post, where he earns a few of the coins that fall off Jeff Bezos’ table by bashing Trump in every column.

Let’s see… a vainglorious war sold under false pretenses, plus the mishandling of Katrina, plus the economic meltdown followed by the big Wall Street bailout… yeah, that’ll do the trick in making Americans distrust their government.

Yet today, seemingly unmindful of his own failed record, Bush wants to lecture us about restoring trust.

8. “We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism—forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America.”

Legal immigration, properly limited, with enough time for new arrivals to assimilate, has, indeed, been a blessing.

But the legal immigrants must come here as full citizens, not as low-wage indentured servants, which is currently the case for those coming here on H-1B visas and H-2B visas. Nor do we need low-wage illegal immigration to further drive down the wages of American workers.

And speaking of illegal immigration, we must ask: How’d that work out for the Roman empire?

9. “How do we begin to encourage a new, 21st century American consensus on behalf of democratic freedom and free markets? That’s the question I posed to scholars at the Bush Institute. That is what Pete Wehner and Tom Melia, who are with us today, have answered with ‘The Spirit of Liberty: At Home, In The World,’ a Call to Action paper.”

Brace yourself, America. The Bush globalists and neocons are back.

They’re ready with their plans and papers, eager to call us to action.

And when we invade a new country, the people there will throw flowers at us and call us liberators—just like the neocons said the Iraqis would.

10. “In serving as a shining hope for refugees and a voice for dissidents, human rights defenders, and the oppressed.”

It might be worth pointing out that Bush has left much of the Middle East in ruins, even as groups of Islamic jihadis grow ever stronger.

Have you ever noticed that when Bush wants to take a conscience-salving trip somewhere, he goes to Africa—not the Middle East?

11. “We should not be blind to the economic and social dislocations caused by globalization. People are hurting. They are angry. And, they are frustrated. We must hear and help them.”

In the White House, Bush didn’t do a thing to help the hurting.

His biggest domestic ideas were the partial privatization of Social Security and, of course, his attempt to further open the U.S.-Mexico border to depress the labor market for the working class Americans most hurt by globalization.

So why should we trust him now?

12. “The ‘Call to Action’ calls on major institutions of our democracy, public and private, to consciously and urgently attend to the problem of declining trust.”

There he goes again talking about “declining trust.” Funny, every time he says that I think of three little letters: WMD.

13. “It is time for American institutions to step up and provide cultural and moral leadership for this nation.”

In fact, remember that hidey-hole they found Saddam Hussein in? Can someone please build one of those in Dallas or Kennebunkport and escort George to it? Give him some pretzels, non-alcoholic beer, and a satellite feed of the Rangers’ games. He’ll be happy, and so will the rest of us.

If he must stay above ground, he can at least spare us any more speeches. This one was enough.

It was a feast of smirking self-satisfaction like the kind Bush was famous for, combining low ability with an unwarranted sense of superiority.

Monday, October 16, 2017

My bedtime reading is the Babylonian Talmud. It’s true. I find horror literature relaxing. I take a volume of the Talmud and a pencil and sit on the edge of my bed and study for 20 to 30 minutes every night, secure in the thought that it will not be anytime soon that I run out of material, since the Talmud consists of more than 30 volumes, much of it turgid minutiae about subjects so prurient they boggle the mind (Sanhedrin 82b: “Zimri engaged in 424 acts of intercourse with Cozbi in one day”). It is perhaps the most pornographic “sacred” text of any major religion, with the possible exception of the Tantra of the Hindus.

There are passages in the Babylonian Talmud that would make Harvey Weinstein blush. Sanhedrin 69a: “A girl who is three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal can be betrothed with intercourse, as, despite her age, the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl three years and one day old dies, if his yavam (brother) engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife...as despite her age she is legally considered to be a married woman.”

Defrauding gentiles is another favorite theme. (Sanhedrin 76b: "What is the cause of sin? Returning a lost item to a gentile”).

Apologists who attempt to explain way these ignominious statements often do so by claiming that the Talmud is merely a series of debates without force of law. This deception is usually sold to those who know little or nothing about the Mishnah and Gemara, which comprise the Talmud. The claim about the Talmud being a series of non-binding debates is an insult to our intelligence. While there are many non-negotiable dogmas, the Talmudic religion is mainly predicated upon situation ethics. This explains in part why, in the 16th century, commensurate with Pope Leo X directing the publication of the finest edition of the Babylonian Talmud the world had ever seen, the popes began to enact loopholes in the immemorial Catholic ban on usury. It seems that the situation of usury had changed and that money could now be rented, despite 1500 years of Biblical and Patristic condemnation of this very act. The immutable law of God was eclipsed by man-made laws of convenience. The process is thoroughly Talmudic.

The Babylonian Talmud is indeed a body of law. It is codified by preeminent authorities such as “the Rambam” (Rabbi Moses Maimonides), author of the Mishneh Torah; Rabbi Joseph Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch, and “the Chafetz Chaim” (Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan), author of the Mishnah Berurah, the legal code centered on the O.C. (“Orach Chayim”) section of Karo’s Shulchan Aruch. There are several other legal authorities, though few have the stature of this trio among the Orthodox Ashkenazi. The source of their binding law codes which micromanage the lives of millions of adherents, is the Talmud of Babylon, that supposed insipid series of mere “debates.”

As you may have surmised from the preceding citations, this writer has been studying tractate Sanhedrin of late, where some of the weightiest matters of halacha (rabbinic law) are propounded. The Sanhedrin volumes cover capital punishment and other forms of penal law, including the eerie concept of the rodef (“pursuer”). It is often bragged that the religion of the Talmud has suspended enforcement of the death penalty. Hence, gentiles don’t have to fear that worshippers of Jesus Christ will be executed for avodah zarah (idolatry), under the Noahide laws; that’s the cover story. The truth is that while the beth din (rabbinic court) does not formally, and as a matter of public action, issue death penalties, they do permit the preemptive execution of a person designated a rodef.

We are dealing here with lawyers. Therefore, it is necessary to be cognizant of the myriad escape clauses that are native to the Talmudic gestalt. Nowadays no rabbinic court sentences anyone to death? That’s true. Hence, people are murdered without trial. The most notorious recent case is that of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, assassinated in 1995 by Yigal Amir, a Talmud student, because Rabin was earnestly endeavoring to make peace with the Palestinians. Amir invoked the halachot of the rodef, i.e the rabbinic law governing a pursuer. Rabin was considered by the Israeli-colonialist settler movement to be a rodef, and hence he was summarily murdered as a preventive act. This is a feature of the Talmudic law governing the “pursuer.” It was conveyed to George W. Bush that the nation of Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a pursuer, and a first strike aggressive war was launched, in accordance with the Talmud, while Protestant fundamentalists and papalist neocons ran about screeching, “Beware, Sharia law is nearly here!”

Pursuers come in all shapes and sizes. They can even be Judaic children. In 1973 Americans were shocked and deeply disturbed when the Supreme Court not only legalized abortion at 12 or 16 weeks' gestation — the Court, in conformity with the Talmud, legalized abortion on demand at any time during the pregnancy, including a few minutes before the baby is born. This abominable crime against the innocent is permissible in those lands where the Talmud exerts dominion.

The relevant halacha is found in the uncensored text of the Talmud Bavli (“Bavli” denotes Babylon), in Sanhedrin 72b, where a mother believes her unborn baby is endangering her life by “pursuing” her. According to the Talmud, this unborn infant rodef can be eliminated at any time during the pregnancy, except when the mother is actually giving birth and the head of the child becomes visible.

“Before the baby is born, it is not considered a living soul, and it is therefore not subject to the halakhot (law) of murder.” — Koren Talmud Bavli: Sanhedrin Part Two (Jerusalem, 2017), p. 155.

Right wing campaigners against the alleged imminent imposition of Sharia law announce that they are defending the “Constitution against Islam.” We have never seen a case where Islamic law profoundly influenced members of the Supreme Court. We have, however, observed repeated Talmudic influence over how the court interprets the Constitution in the modern era. Roe v. Wade is one example. Another is the “discovery” of a Constitutional right to legalize the marriage of sodomites. It goes without saying that the Founders envisioned no such right, just as the Bible made no allowance for a usurping Talmud.

In the religion that is directed by the Talmud, there is no legislature. All laws are made by judicial decision. It just so happens that this is how much of the supreme law of the land is made in America. Another name for “activist judge” is Talmudic judge.

Our nation is under Talmudic law, not Sharia, though immense troops of Protestant and Catholic ignoramuses display their cluelessness as they crusade with intense fervor against a non-existent menace, while oblivious to the cancer eating at the bowels of our nation.

One wants to be charitable. One hesitates to overtax rhetoric and apply the word idiocy to the victims of what is a constantly mutating virus of deception that has hoodwinked them and 99% of the conservative movement. In lieu of such rhetoric, an observation of C. Wright Mills comes to mind, “We are at a curious juncture in the history of human insanity.”

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

In the wake of our article on “Books Banned by Banned Books Week”—concerning “Holocaust denial” volumes policed out of the banned category—we received an e-mail from James LaRue, director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, which administersBanned Books Week. This organization appears to mainly promote the freedom to read proscribed books that don’t threaten the canon of Leftist ideology. Conservatives who are critical of publications that undermine traditional values are usually the villains in this rigged morality theatre. In the case at hand, revisionist authors who cast doubt on aspects of the Establishment’s hallowed historical dogmas, have virtually no presence in Banned Books Week. The American Library Association (ALA) and the American Booksellers Association are engaged in a cynical ruse, posing as champions of all banned books while almost exclusively promoting as banned those volumes which do not challenge the Leftist, or in this instance, the Zionist agenda.

In responding to this writer’s column, Mr. LaRue wrote, “Banned Books Week reports on challenges - attempts to remove or restrict access - to books held by publicly funded libraries and schools. Amazon, not publicly funded, not a library, falls completely outside of the scope of our work. Private businesses can carry, or not carry, any merchandise they choose to.”

If we understand Mr. LaRue correctly, he and the ALA have zero interest in banned books when they are suppressed by book stores as part of a commercial enterprise. LaRue’s insouciance with regard to the many dozens of revisionist books banned last February by Amazon.com at the behest of the World Jewish Congress, belies the public pose of the American Library Association and its “Freedom to Read Foundation” (FTRF), as expressed in 1970 by Judith Krug, in her articulation of its founding mandate: “To promote and protect freedom of speech and press...and...the public right to hear what is spoken and read what is written...”

Whether or not libraries and schools are the focus, for the “Office for Intellectual Freedom” and the “Freedom to Read Foundation” to be indifferent to the fate of any other banned book in any other setting other than libraries and schools, would probably be news to the majority of the public who are the intended audience for Banned Books Week, which in its 2017 advertising, depicted a clenched fist and the slogan, “Stand for the Banned.” Other catchphrases employed officially include, “Our Right to Read," "Stand for Intellectual Freedom,” and “Words Have Power: Read a Banned Book.” There are no “fine print” disclaimers accompanying these mantras, which are printed on bags, cups and bumperstickers sold by the ALA — stating that these noble sentiments apply only to books forbidden by public libraries and schools.

The “Stand for the Banned” message is without qualification and is apt to beguile donors and supporters who have no inkling of how circumscribed and shuttered it actually is. They have no idea, for example, that the director of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom engages in what might be characterized as unseemly gloating over the commercial suppression of demonized books. In his e-mail, James LaRue wrote, “...you do not have the right to demand public or commercial platforms for them (your opinions). There is harsh competition in the marketplace of ideas. There are winners, and speaking of obsessive, willfully ignorant anti-Semitism, there are losers.”

(Note well his words about willful ignorance. We will return to them shortly).

An official of the American Library Association who oversees Banned Books Week offers no lament for the banned books that are “losers” in “the marketplace of ideas.” Once again we are in the realm of the surreal. How does such an attitude advance the ALA’s goals of “Intellectual Freedom” and its apothegm, “Stand for the Banned”? When it comes to the suppression of World War II revisionist histories the American Library Association is firmly seated. Rather than hewing to liberty in all instances and across all categories, the ALA is taking the side of those who would marginalize books branded with the pejorative “anti-Semitism” stigma, which in some cases is little more than a witch-hunting canard intended to smear heretical works authored by learned non-conformists who are seeking to compete for the attention of readers in the “marketplace of ideas.”

We would have thought that an organization bearing the lofty title, “Office for Intellectual Freedom,” and whose slogan is “Words Have Power: Read a Banned Book,” would respond by stating that while Amazon’s ban on World War II revisionist books was outside the immediate purview of the ALA’s Banned Books Week, they unequivocally regret and protest Amazon’s censorship, while recognizing that commercial operations may do as they please in this regard.

Commerce has not yet trumped ethics in America — or has it, as far as the nation’s teachers and librarians are concerned? LaRue’s snide satisfaction with Amazon’s suppression of authors too far out even for Banned Books Week, reflects the ALA’s Leftist predilection for masquerading as freedom-lovers the better to render invisible politically incorrect writers whose freedomto be read has been abridged not so much by the free market, as monopoly forces within that market. Given the opportunity to compete freely by enjoying wide access to the nation’s readers, and revisionist books would become best-sellers. This can’t be allowed and Mr. LaRue tells us why: “...the lack of commercial interest in ‘contrarian’ or ‘revisionist’ histories of the Holocaust reflects their flat out falsity, their lack of scholarly rigor, and the transparent bigotry that guides them.”

There you have it. With regard to banned books judged by the Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom to be false, lacking in “scholarly rigor” and suffused with “transparent bigotry,” it is neither reprehensible nor an occasion for protest when earth’s largest bookstore forbids their sale. Somehow this dictum of the Inquisition (that “error” has no rights), looks a tad contradictory and at cross-purposes with the official freedom philosophy sold to the public by Banned Books Week and its virtue-signaling sponsors.

In light of Mr. LaRue’s remark about “willful ignorance,” we contacted him concerning which revisionist books he had read that caused him to assess them so caustically. Surely he was not “willfully ignorant” of their contents? We asked him: “With regard to your assessment of the whole corpus of WWII revisionist historiography in terms of ‘...their flat out falsity, their lack of scholarly rigor, and the transparent bigotry...’ have you ever actually read a book by one of the leading writers in the genre, such as Arthur R. Butz, Carlo Mattogno, Robert Faurisson or Germar Rudolf? If so, which one(s)? If not, I include a link to a pdf. file containing the complete text of Mr. Rudolf’s banned book, should you wish to undertake the obligation of perusing what you have so severely reproved: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdf.”

Mr. LaRue did not scruple to reply.

(LaRue would allow us to publish his remarks only if we printed them in full, and we do so herein: “First, I have never spoken with the author of this article. I don't know who the ‘we’ is he refers to - unless it was the woman who last week demanded of one of my staff to know my ‘ethnic background,’ complained about a picture of a dreadlocked black man on the American library Association website, then made childish and incoherent remarks about Jews on Twitter. If she is aligned with your cause, she is not a credible investigator or representative. Second, as we make clear on our website and in press releases, Banned Books Week reports on challenges - attempts to remove or restrict access - to books held by publicly funded libraries and schools. Amazon, not publicly funded, not a library, falls completely outside of the scope of our work. Private businesses can carry, or not carry, any merchandise they choose to. To describe this as some kind of conspiracy on the part of the Left is...novel. Third, the lack of commercial interest in ‘contrarian’ or ‘revisionist’ histories of the Holocaust reflects their flat out falsity, their lack of scholarly rigor, and the transparent bigotry that guides them. But the idea of conspiracies may be more comforting to you. Fourth, you have the right to your opinions. But you do not have the right to demand public or commercial platforms for them. There is harsh competition in the marketplace of ideas. There are winners, and speaking of obsessive, willfully ignorant anti-Semitism, there are losers.” James LaRue ALA / FTRF, October 7, 2017).